THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Robin,
Seems everyone now is standing in line asking for handouts. AIG, Lehman Bothers, American Express, The Housing Industry, The Detroit members of the auto industry, New York City, Phoenix……all standing with their hats in their hands………….
The United States taxpayers could have purchased AIG and all three of the big automakers with the money we are giving them.
What’s next; Airlines? Oil Companies? Railroads? Mining Industies? Shipping?
The welfare state has arrived…….God help us.
This article (“The green pseudo-revolution – Whatever the enviro-lobbyists say, subsidising inefficient green industries is not the way to tackle climate change”) by (sorry, Peter) Bjorn Lomborg comments that (cf. my posts above) “With a worldwide recession advancing, strong action on global warming has been thrown into jeopardy”. Having observed that the “problem with the green revolution argument is that it doesn’t trouble itself about efficiency”. As an illustration, he cites Denmark
An energy company sponsoring a TV climate change show? Surely not?
Max: yes but ve haf veys of avoiding de kaps.
Hey guys,
Now that we have joshed a bit about Merkel’s magnificent maneuver (bless her soul) to distance her nation from crippling carbon cap nonsense, we should get back to a serious discussion about “the future” (which Peter also prefers to ponder).
So what will happen to the critical “globally averaged annual land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (whew!) in 2009?
Will it continue to cool as in 2008, or will it warm by a precise 0.02C (1/10th of the projected decadal warming per the IPCC model prophesies)?
The battle is on.
In one corner we have highly sophisticated and expensive (tax-payer funded) computerized climate models and all-time record human CO2 emissions (which may be slowing down a bit due to a global economic slowdown).
In the other corner we have a sluggish sun (with essentially no sunspot activity).
And the whole issue is confounded by the pesky, non-deterministic PDO, ENSO, NAO, etc. (plus other natural factors of which our distinguished “climate scientists” have no earthly clue as yet).
Peter has cut out all these vagaries in this equation and is relying completely on the simplistic AGW-based climate models and human CO2 emissions to tell us what the future will bring.
I, for one, sincerely hope that Peter and the IPCC are right, and that we really have 0.02C warming next year, rather than more cooling.
Believe it, folks, we do not need another “Little Ice Age”. We do not need happy polar bears prowling around in Winnipeg or Oslo.
It would be much better if we could have another “Medieval Warm Period” or “Roman Optimum”.
So let’s all hope and pray that Peter is right.
Regards,
Max
No, Max – we certainly don’t need another LIA. This article (Global Warming is Good) summarises that well. An extract:
Unfortunately, there are rather too many indications that the present warm period may be ending. We’ve been fooled by long warm periods before. This article (Is our climate changing? A study of long term temperature trends) was published in 1933. An extract:
Now I’m the granddad and I remember the winters of the 40s and 60s. I don’t relish a repetition in my old age.
TonyB, Reur 2746, you wrote in part:
Tony, I MUST say that I have had VERY similar thoughts, but as a possible minor variation, I ponder that Mann probably did his MBH 98 thesis (published in Nature) with tongue in cheek, and was fishing for support and future funding from his “employers“. When this went rather smoothly, he then took a giant leap forward for mankind, and had published in AGL his millennial extension MBH 99. And, he got support from the Stephen Schneiders etc of this world. And then came-along his cohorts in the 3AR (2001 IPCC), searching for “Manna”. (and they persuaded him to do “things” for the cause)
However, taking a step back, any rational reading of MBH99, as published in AGL, available free on-line, will find that it is a highly tentative document: (as hinted even in the title within its latter words.)
Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. <Just Google this title to immediately find the PDF)
Without making a big meal of various things throughout the whole of MBH99, here are their conclusions, in part:
These are not the only cautionary statements and funnies throughout MBH99, but the TAR (IPCC 2001) painted a totally different picture as if the (“Manna”) hockey-stick was irrefutable, in every possible corner of the various TAR (2001) reports, and was their “white charger“. (6 or 7 variants?….. Not to mention various other podia like in media events.)
Not only that, but the original hockey-stick MBH99 as published in AGL was pictorially significantly modified in the TAR IPCC 2001 version, but NOT to actually reflect the latest data. Instead, they retained the really scary 2YO spike T of 1998, and declined to show the much lower T’s of 1999 & 2000, which would have been scientifically correct, and which would have given a much less scary T trend.
ADDITIONALLY, I have noticed the following:
1) MBH were very clearly aware of the great uncertainties in their data prior to 1400 AD, and used the brightest possible colour; yellow to highlight this uncertainty on the original graph. However, the later IPCC version toned it down to a less attention-seeking soft grey.
2) The anomaly datum (zero) is significantly different.
3) Relative emphasis of proxy versus instrumental data is different post ~1900
Gotta go!
Max,
No the predictions aren’t “that awful” at all.
Now that you have discovered tridecadal averages you shouldn’t have any real problem with rolling five year averages.
If you plot out a rolling five year averages going back to 1940 you can see alternating warming and cooling periods.
Whether the current period is really one of cooling is debatable. Even you are only claiming -0.05deg C, but it certainly should be cooling according to previous patterns.
The next part of the cycle will be one of rapid warming. I won’t be too happy about being right on that but at least I’ll be collecting my $100 from you!
PS What’s all this about ‘praying’? I have often suspected that you have some hidden religious agenda that you aren’t telling us about.
PS Forgot to give you my link for the last post:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/3037848006_1eefae7c62_o.png
Robin 2754
That was a very nice nice link from Washington Dc in 1933 which I have archived-thanks!
I have previously posted material from the New York Times of that era commenting about unprecedented warming in this period and also cited the adventures of Bob Bartlett in the Arctic who was famous for his journeys, shown in pathe newsreels in cinemas around the world.
I have also previously cited an extract
http://www.ernestina.org/history/1931.html
Bartlett mounted a Peary memorial expedition with Mrs Peary Stafford keeping a diary;
This from Wednesday, 10th August 1932
…The glacier continues its disturbances. No real bergs break off but great sheets of ice slide down into the water and cause heavy seas. About noon, the entire face of the glacier, almost a mile in length and six or eight feet deep slid off with a roar and a rumble that must have been heard at some distance. We were on deck at the time for a preliminary report like a pistol shot had warned us what was coming. The Morrissey rolled until her boats at the davits almost scooped up the water and everything on board that was not firmly anchored in place crashed loose. But this was nothing to the pandemonium on shore. I watched it all through the glasses. The water receded leaving yards of beach bare and then returned with a terrific rush, bringing great chunks of ice with it. Up the beach it raced further and further, with the Eskimos fleeing before it. It covered all the carefully cherished piles of walrus meat, flowed across two of the tents with their contents, put out the fire over which the noonday meal for the sled drivers was being prepared…
The women laughed and chattered and seemed to think it all an enormous practical joke that had been played on them.”
The following link demonstratres the interest in the Arctic and what was happening there-the first time the Arctic had melted since 1912.
http://www.bowdoin.edu/arctic-museum/exhibits/past-exhibits/arcticcinema.shtml
This item from Scotland from the same time also ilustrates the constantly changing nature of winters;
“This is what a farmer from Buchan in North East Scotland, one of the snowiest parts of lowland Britain, wrote in the agricultural section of a local newspaper during the exceptionally mild winter of 1933/34.
“1934 has opened true to the modern tradition of open, snowless winters. The long ago winters are no precedent for our modern samples. During the last decade, during several Januarys the lark has heralded spring up in the lift from the middle to the end of the month. Not full fledged songs but preliminary bars in an effort to adapt to our climatic change”
It then goes on to say
“It is unwise to assume that the modern winters have displaced the old indefinitely”
and also
“Our modern winters have induced an altered agricultural regime”
That description sound pretty much apt for the winters today. Hence there has been no change since that era. This current winter has been remarkably snowless in my area but not a patch on 1933/34 when there hadn’t even been a flake falling by this time and daffodils were in full bloom by the fourth week of February.”
TonyB
There is a new guest post here which will probably come as a surprise to all but one of the regulars on this thread. Although I do not share many of the views expressed by the author, they are certainly relevant to the climate debate at the present time and I think that they are worth exploring.
Any comments on it MUST be made on that thread and not this one.
Max
We both have an interest in Miskolczi so this should be of interest
http://landshape.org/enm/model-of-global-warming/
There are three separate items all of which are worth reading with item 2 being particularly relevant
TonyB
Peter Martin Reur 2743, you wrote in part:
I’m not sure what you are saying here, but suggest that you place too much significance in what you see as formal “peer review” and whatever the publishing journal IS.
If you are genuinely interested in science, it might be better if you consider the scientific CONTENT of various papers rather than whether they have been submitted to what YOU feel are the more “reliable” publishers.
In the case of the Loehle work which you imply you are no longer deriding as such, but prefer that it were from a “better” publisher, I would argue that it has had the best possible peer review, as initiated on Steve McIntyre’s site and as of yesterday with 355 comments thereon.
Let us compare that very detailed examination of Loehle, just TOPICALLY with MBH98, accepted by Nature, and MBH99, accepted by AGL. In both cases, if the peer reviewers, (auditors), had included historians, geologists, engineers, or any inquisitive applied scientists, (even me, or Max), I am very confident that those papers would not have been accepted.
OK, let’s look at the acknowledgements from AGL/MBH in the acceptance of MBH99:
Ah…. Dear ol’ Phil Jones and two anonymous reviewers….. How lovely!
There are some other significances in there, but I’ll keep it short and simple for now.
No need to respond Pete; other readers can form their own opinions.
Re: #2743, Peter
You may have come across the chapter in Richard Fortey’s The Earth, an Intimate History which considers in detail the problems of establishing past sea levels in the context of ancient Mediterranean settlements.
So far as the so-called Sea Gate at Harlech Castle is concerned, this almost certainly refers to its orientation, not its use. A highly imaginative picture dating from the late 18th or early 19th century shows waves breaking around the base of the cliff on which the castle stands, and this romantic view was perpetuated in numerous subsequent plagiarisations. The evidence on the ground is far more prosaic.
The vast area of low-lying meadows below the castle was tidal marshland until the beginning of the 19th century when extensive embankments were built along the estuary three miles north of Harlech as a land reclamation scheme. There are suggestions that there may have been a canal which connected the estuary to the castle in medieval times, but the evidence is inconclusive. There is no historical or geological evidence to support the idea that the castle ever had a coastal frontage.
Dramatic pictures of the sea breaking against the base of the castle cliffs are still available in local gift shops, keeping the myth alive.
As you all will have read over the last few weeks I have been trying to determine what impact co2 has on warming, whilst trying to relate that to conventional co2 readings (ice cores 280ppm) and historic measurements (beck-up to 350ppm).
I feel it would be useful to try to put co2 into a better context as that will then enable me to determine if the higher historic c02 measurements-(Beck) make more sense than the ice cores when they are related to historic temperatures.
To achieve that better perspective I want to try and adapt my series of mencken graphs by in effect ‘zooming out’ in a series of steps from the current position. I have done the ‘close up’ view which was;
Graph 1 http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken.xls
Hadley historic CET against IPCC emissions translated to current ppm levels. In this it was difficult to see the relationship between co2 levels and temperature, unless other higher co2 readings (beck) were inserted prior 1958
2) As graph 1) but with the impact of man made co2 prior to 1960 removed as it is disappears from the system with its half life of 50 years (my #2745 and max #2748 refer)
3)The next ‘zoom out’ is man made co2 compared to natural co2 levels (on the annual basis)
4) As in 3) but comparing it with overall greenhouse gases
5) Looking at all natural co2 produced since 1750 and comparing it to all man made co2 produced since same date. I think this is shown in the following;
http://euro-med.dk/billeder/thumb-co2-atm.jpg
This seems to show atmospheric co2 increasing much more rapidly than is possible by merely factoring in man made emissions. Presumably this is on the basis that 600gt of natural co2 accumulating every year will mean its proportion to man made co2- at only 30GT pa- will rapidly change and the man made proportion diminishes (any comments on its accuracy?)
6) As in 5) but again then putting it in context against all greenhouse gases
7) As 6) but comparing it to total atmosphere.
Is that a logical ‘zoom out’ or can anyone think of better steps to enable us to see man made and natural c02 in their proper perspective to each other, and more generally to other greenhouse gases?
Any ideas anyone?
TonyB
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “No the predictions aren’t ‘that awful’ at all.”
IPCC prediction: +0.2C/decade warming
Hadley actual: -0.05C/decade cooling
Sounds pretty “awful” to me.
“The next part of the cycle will be one of rapid warming. I won’t be too happy about being right on that but at least I’ll be collecting my $100 from you!”
Ho, ho! Don’t be so sure, Peter. (BTW, our bet has nothing to do with “5-year rolling averages” or any other manipulated values.)
Keep checking “Solar Cycle 24” on the internet, and keep praying that it will start getting a bit more active than it has been. While you’re at it, pray that the ENSO will shift again.
As Bob_FJ has shown us with his projection, it looks like we are headed for a period of cooling similar to the one we had from 1944-1956. Your curve shows this to be –0.2C cooling over the 12 years, which would put us at 0.2C below the 2008 value by 2020.
Hadley tells us that the most recent 12 months had an average anomaly of 0.279C, so let’s assume this will be the annual value for 2008 as well (despite their “awful” prediction of 0.375C a year ago!).
This would mean that year 2020 will have an anomaly of 0.279 – 0.2 = 0.079C, a value we have not enjoyed since the early 1990s (and a value 0.436C below that all-time 1998 ENSO high of 0.515C).
You may not have gotten the picture yet, Peter, but the “climes they are a’changin’” (to paraphrase the old song)…
Regards,
Max
Note to TonyB
The Miskolczi article “Model of Global Warming” seems pretty basic.
If the greenhouse factor is truly constrained to Gmax = 1.5, then the conventional understanding of the AGW hypothesis is wrong.
Let’s see if someone (the folks at RealClimate?) responds to the challenge of experimentally proving that this constraint is incorrect.
Regards,
Max
PS Will go through your other post and see if there is anything I can add.
Re: #2754, Robin
The other day, someone asked me what I thought had caused global warming if it was not anthropogenic co2 emissions. Flippantly, I said I thought that it was probably the development of the PC.
Most climate research, and all predictions, involves industrial scale number crunching which would have either been impossible or impractical when Kincer wrote his article in 1933. Now the computing power of Excel, R, and Matlab are available to anyone. Where would climate science be without this ability to calculate, tweak the algorithms, and then calculate again? Would we be able to say ‘unequivocally’ that GMT increased by 0.6C during the 20th century? Or would we just have a vague sense that the climate may have changed, like Kincer?
Dramatic empiric evidence of climate change is rather difficult to find, so to what extent would we have even noticed that anything was happening? Perhaps it wasn’t such a flippant remark after all. The development of computing as a generally available resource is roughly concurrent with global warming alarmism if you date this from Hansen’s and Schnieder’s early proselytising, and the IPCC’s origin, in the late 1980s.
Interestingly, the global cooling scare of the late1960s and 1970s never really got off the ground because the temperature trend reversed before it had a chance to do so. But if the computing power that is available today had exited then, I wonder what would have happened? And how many GCMs (using mainframes) would have predicted the late 20th century warming?
TonyN
I have often said the same thing about computers but not intended as a flippant remark.
I was examining a Carnegie report on atmospheric co2 readings from 1912. The amount of work needed to research this at that time was considerable especially as libraries did not always have the most up to date information. Callandar himsdelf in his seminal 1938 paper on the composition of the atmosphere (and afterwards) had complained of the difficulty in finding material-small wonder he seemed to have missed numerous papers that would have persuaded him never to embark on his co2/man made warming theory in the first place.
Computer models and google research enable numerous theories-complete with revenue earning pretty graphs-to be created with limited work.
Small wonder we are afflicted from a surfeit of theories all with ‘champions’ and eager for more funds to develop them further. The computer is a very useful tool but should not be a substitute for good science or good research.
TonyB
Hi TonyB,
The simplistic AGW hypothesis suggests that human CO2 emissions are the cause for all increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
If we accept this simplistic suggestion, we saw that over the historical period since around year 1750 humans emitted around 1940 Gt CO2, of which around 40%, or 776 Gt CO2, “stayed” in the atmosphere, raising the CO2 concentration from a pre-industrial 280 ppmv to the year 2005 value of 379 ppmv.
Let’s look into the future.
It appears that the optimistically estimated total world reserves of oil, coal and natural gas will last us around 160 years (at present consumption rates). Based on these optimistic estimates of reserves, mankind has consumed around 30% of the planet’s total fossil fuels to date and still has around 70% to consume in the future.
These total remaining reserves will generate a total cumulative amount of CO2, as follows:
1330 Gt CO2 from oil
3337 Gt CO2 from coal
603 Gt CO2 from natural gas
5270 Gt CO2 from fossil fuels
If we add in an estimated 230 Gt CO2 from cement production, we have a total cumulative human CO2 emission of 5500 Gt (until around year 2170).
If we assume that 40% stays in atmosphere (as we saw in the past), this equals 2200 Gt CO2, which would increase the atmospheric concentration by 428 ppm(mass) or 282 ppmv, from the year 2005 level of 379 ppmv to a “year 2170” level of 661 ppmv.
Remember, this is all the CO2 there is in our planet’s remaining fossil fuels, so it represents the asymptotic absolute upper limit of the effect of man-made CO2 on our atmosphere.
How much warming can we expect from this?
Forgetting “feedbacks” (which are doubtful at best, based on latest research) a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause theoretical warming of around 0.8C (IPCC).
C1 = year 2005 CO2 concentration = 379 ppmv
C2 = year 2170 CO2 concentration = 661 ppmv
C2/C1 = 1.743
ln (C2/C1) = 0.5556
ln (2) = 0.6931
dT = 0.8 * 0.5556 / 0.6931 = 0.64C
Not too much to worry about.
Now, I know that Peter will balk at this calculation. He will throw in “positive” feedbacks from water vapor and clouds as assumed in all the GCMs cited by IPCC, which supposedly will increase the 2xCO2 sensitivity from 0.8C to 3.2C (bringing the theoretical absolute maximum AGW warming to around 2.5C).
Unfortunately for Peter’s case, physical observations (Minschwaner + Dessler) show that the theoretical water vapor feedback is grossly overstated (since it rests on the supposition that relative humidity remains constant with increased temperature, which has been shown by physical observations to be false). In addition physical observations on clouds (Spencer et al.) show that these provide a strong negative feedback (rather than a strong positive feedback as assumed by all the IPCC GCMs, admittedly with the disclaimer, “Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.).
So, no matter how one twists or turns it, AGW does not have the theoretical potential to represent any real threat to our climate.
This is just a quick “broad brush” calculation; I believe your studies will point this out in even greater detail.
Regards,
Max
Max/Bob/TonyB: I daresay you’re familiar with this paper (A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing) but, if not, you may find it interesting. A quotation from the synopsis:
Yes, Peter, it was published in a recognised journal (PNAS) and peer-reviewed.
Max
I agree with your comments in 2768 which makes
it so difficult to see how warming can ever be more than around 0.6 of a degree unless all the previous accepted theories are wrong and the logarithmic curve of co2 does not exist.
Looking at practicalities rather than fantastic theories makes it desirable to see all this in context, hence my desire to ‘zoom out’ from my first mencken graph.
Question 1
If the figure for all human co2 since 1750 is around 1740 GT (of which 776 have stayed) what is the equivalent figure for natural co2 since 1750 and how much of that has ‘stayed?’
Question 2
Do you agree with the logical sequence of the zoom out graphs I have suggested?
THanks
TonyB
The IPCC “confidence game”
In the first report of 1990, IPCC predicted, “Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years; under other … scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls, rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0.2°C [to] about 0.1°C per decade.”
In the latest report (2007), IPCC pats itself on the back with, “Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1995 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.”
IPCC also projects, “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”
Let’s cut through the “strengthening confidence” and see how well IPCC has done with its forecasts.
In 1990 the prediction was for 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade (with a mean of 0.3°C per decade), unless controls were enforced (which we know they were not). In an amazing “rewriting of history”, IPCC later modified its earlier forecast after the fact to 0.15°C to 0.3°C per decade and says they came pretty close at about 0.2°C per decade.
The actual decadal rate of increase turned out to be 0.17°C (yeah, that’s “about” 0.2°C, but it’s not so close to the original prediction of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade, with a mean of 0.3°C per decade). This would not really strengthen my confidence in IPCC’s near-term projections, but let’s see how well they’ve done since then.
We should now be seeing warming of 0.2°C per decade according to their latest prediction. In actual fact we have a cooling of 0.05°C per decade since 2001, rather than a warming.
Ouch! So much for the “strengthening confidence”.
Regards,
Max
Robin 2769
Many thanks for this. Yes I think I had seen it before but I had not read it in context with other relevant material, so it was really great that you posted it at this stage.
Having read so much about Beck the concept of variable co2 levels in the past makes much more sense, and explains why the AGW establishment tries to discredit his work.
An awful lot of the theory is really based around the ice cores being correct, so it is no wonder they are defended so vigorously!
I think the lesson in all this is that I need a full time archivist cross referencing all the material I have gathered over the years-including material from this blog. Then I need to look through it on a regular basis to put it all in context.
So if you can just come up with the funding package for me to do that I would be greatful. Surely we can persuade the US Govt to deduct $250,000 from Dr Manns budget for such a good cause…?
TonyB
Robin
The van Hoof et al. paper on pre-industrial CO2 which you linked is interesting. Maybe TonyB can use some of the information for his studies.
TonyB
To your question, “what is the equivalent figure for natural co2 since 1750 and how much of that has ’stayed?’”. It is hard for me to make any kind of estimate of “natural CO2 changes since 1750” (the study cited by Robin gives one such estimate for pre-industrial CO2 variations, as do all the studies cited by Beck, of which you are aware).
If one accepts the AGW concept (which I do not) that all changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are anthropogenic in origin, then only 60% of what was emitted “stayed” in the atmosphere and the rest disappeared somewhere.
AGW proponents usually suggest that “somewhere” is the ocean, even warning us that the resulting “acidification” of the ocean will be harmful (since the ocean is mildly alkaline, the term “acidification” is a misnomer to start with, and the suggestion that the ocean is absorbing the “missing” human CO2is pure conjecture, since there are no physical observations to confirm it).
It could just as well have been absorbed by a slightly higher rate of photosynthesis.
Then, in apparent contradiction with its own hypothesis, IPCC comes up with another bit of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo it calls the “climate-carbon cycle feedback”, stating, “Warming tends to reduce land and ocean uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic emissions that remains in the atmosphere. For the A2 scenario, for example, the climate-carbon cycle feedback increases the corresponding global average warming at 2100 by more than 1°C. Assessed upper ranges for temperature projections are larger than in the TAR mainly because the broader range of models now available suggests stronger climate-carbon cycle feedbacks.”
The amount of CO2 that is naturally absorbed by cold ocean waters and re-emitted by warmer waters is an order of magnitude greater than the total human emissions.
By definition, either the “ocean acidification” scare or the extra warming scare from “climate-carbon cycle feedback” is false. My guess is that they are both incorrect.
To the other question, “Do you agree with the logical sequence of the zoom out graphs I have suggested?”. Yes, this seems a logical approach.
Regards,
Max
These are all linked and relate to Max’s previous musings as to where co2 disappeared to-into space? Well yes…er no…er.. possibly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4486049.stm
Co2 causes cooling in troposhere
Extract
“The atmosphere up to about 2,000km is extremely rarefied. Even so, carbon dioxide molecules will still bump into oxygen atoms.
The ISS has some protection against impacts
On impact, the CO2 molecules emit a photon in the infrared wavelength – as heat – which then radiates away into space.”
So yes it does radiate…
But then again NO…
http://www.telluridescience.org/node/40
About the orbiting carbon monitor
This a series of emails in 1995
http://home.att.net/~rpuchalsky/sci_env/esef_thread.txt
This a very nice simple experiment re co2 with lots of common sense
http://www.thisisby.us/index.php/content/carbon_dioxide_the_bogus_greenhouse_gas
So is the enhanced greenhouse effect stopping heat radiating away, or is heat following its age old tendency to flow to where it is cooler-space?
Looks like I’ll have to go away and read the full version of IPPCC part 4 again. Unless anyone has a definitive article they would care to share?
TonyB
TonyB
In my 2773 I erroneously said that 60% of the human-emitted CO2 “remained” in the atmosphere. The actual figure is 40%, of course. Sorry.
Max